Everywhere in the world people are concerned with energy efficiency. The driving factors have typically been to achieve some sort of savings and lessen the burden on the planet. Both of these are drilled into us religiously and presented in ways that appeal to our desire to do better and save money. But does any of it live up to the hype? Lets take a closer look and see.
A standard furnace is anywhere from $4,500 to $6,500 installed while a high-efficiency furnace can be from $6,000 to $9,500 or more. That is roughly a $1,500–$3,000 difference for a gain of 15–20% in fuel cost. That creates a break even point of at least 10+ years and by that time repairs on a highly sophisticated furnace system furnace have already begun to did into the pocket book.
High-efficiency windows cost roughly $8,000–$20,000+ for whole-house window replacement. Typically one would see utility bill reductions of anywhere from $200 to $500 per year. This makes payback anywhere from 10 to 20 years depending on the climate. Again, by the time you get to 10 years, the window seals are beginning to fail and have past warranty so you are doing it all over again. No actual savings here either.
So how about your hot water tank then? Standard tanks run from $1000 to $3000 installed while efficient units or tankless can be $1500 to $3500 plus. Here we see gains of around 20 to 30% resulting in anywhere from 3 to 8 years to break even. In most cases, the water tank is being replaced in 8 years and sometimes tankless ones can be as low as 3 or 4 years. So although we see a shorter time frame to break even, again it is of little use because we are back to replacing these at the break even point.
Well what about led lights? Here we typically see $2 to $8 dollars a bulb unless we opt out for new fixtures too which will be much higher in cost. Incandescent bulbs, if you can find them, are maybe a buck a pop but far more power usage. With the 75 to 80% savings in energy, a typical home could break even in a couple of years. If the led units work beyond the two years, we may start to see savings making this the only one so far. Keep in mind, the savings per year would be around $20 to $30 though because lighting accounts for very little of the annual bill. This makes lighting a feel good win, but just barely.
That brings us to the EV debate. Most of the estimates on cost vs brake even work out to at least 10 years. Unfortunately, by that time, most EVs will need complete battery changes at a cost close to the initial purchase price of the vehicle. Again, no long term gain and a 10 year brake even point not to mention the fact that charging infrastructure has yet to catch up for long distance driving situations. The reality is that most vehicles of that age are costing us in repairs or have other issues so we opt out for a new purchase just when we reach to neutral point.
What this shows is that the energy savings/environmental movement is highly flawed. In fact, it may even be considered an outright scam. Yet another example could be the push for window plastic in an effort to winterize. There are no real savings because in each case, brake even comes at a time when repairs and/or replacement will occur. Instead of savings, at best it is break even but always many years into the future meaning the money is spent in advance and recovered over time. Money is funnelled to the efficiency industries while fooling the public into thinking they are helping, making a difference, or saving money. Furthermore, any energy savings globally are more than used up on data centres housing AI models nullifying gains. The reality is the whole movement is a method of transferring money from one pocket to another with a feel good component to keep engagement up. Bottom line is the savings do not exist while some strange things become apparent as seen in The Plastic Police and the Carbon Craze.